trying to tell the truth
I tried to post a review on the Mccain website asking a few questions and making a few observations. As soon as I submitted the material it was erased. Here is a summary of what was said; I asked them about the use of the word "hero" when describing Mccain because he was a prisoner of war in room 7 of the Hanoi Hilton along with 46 other men. Do you consider all of the men as heroes merely because they were captured? Mccain was not in charge of the POW's during their time in captivity and while it is true that he was tortured, other men were tortured also. I have not heard or seen any accounts of other men making statements against the U.S.'s actions during that time but John Mccain did! It is on film. I also understand that it was said that he did it to stop some severe punishment but the FACT remians that he did make the televised statements. How does that make him a hero and not the other men? Admr. Stockdale was the ranking officer during this time. Do you remember how the republican party portrayed the Admr. during the debates when he was the running mate for Ross Perot? I remember the term "bumbling idiot" as well as "mentally incompetent" being used more than a few times. Where was Mccain then, why was he not defending his senior officer (against his party) since he continually claims to be a "maverick" who stands opposed to the GOP when they are wrong? If Mccain is a hero and he did talk why is his commanding officer and the other 46 men not heroes also? Why was there no defense of Admr. Stockdale by this"hero" who served under the Admr.'s leadership during his captivity? Mccain's silence during that time has always bothered me. I asked the republicans to show in print, just ten times when Mccain has voted against a Bush request in the entire time that Bush has been in office. Of all the votes that the senate has had to cast in 7 years you would think that a "maverick" like Mccain claims to be could show you in his senate record a lot more than a mere 10 votes. I am also curious concerning the term"liberal". My dictionary defines the word as,"someone who considers others views that are different than their own". What is so wrong with that? Seriously, what is wrong with having a liberal mindset? wouldn't that mean that you are open to good ideas even if they did not originate from you? And wouldn't the opposite view be closed minded? You would not be willing to entertain any thoughts that were not of your own invention no matter how benificial those thoughts might be? I wonder why republicans and Mccain in particular have such a hard time just telling the truth. Enough with the double standards. Palin was for the bridge to nowhere now she is saying she was against it; she supports abstinence only education but her 17 year old,high school, daughter is pregnant. Isn,t that premarital as well as unprotected sex? How effective is the sex education that she supports if it didn't work in her own household? The double standard is a fancy term for hypocrisy.

Posted By: applecart (168.13.191.×××), on Thursday, September 18, 2008

---